Interstellar travel?

[Timsup2nothin]

A reasonable person would understand what I was asking of you. I get that not being reasonable is a part of your personality, but it isn't really getting us anywhere here

I love the way you assume that when we don't get anywhere it's me that is not a reasonable person.

I understand completely what you are asking of me...you want me to provide agreement with your randomly determined level where uniqueness needs to be applied in order to just accept your position. "There are stars, so there must be planets" wasn't ever true. There are other planets. Having planets is not a unique characteristic. That does not in any way prove that our star has zero unique characteristics. "There are planets, so there must be earth like planets" also is not true. I can say that there are other earth like planets without even leaving the solar system, since all the known plants are oblate spheroids just like earth. That's the kind of 'word game gotcha' that you are playing.

You want to point to characteristics that by inspection are not uniquely held, such as physical shape, and say that you are proving that no characteristic can be uniquely held. I pointed out that you prove the opposite. No matter how many characteristics you, I, and the next guy may hold in common, you still have more characteristics that are uniquely held.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't have to prove anything. All I'm saying is that you're basically assuming what you want to demonstrate. There is only one of this, therefore uniqueness. But "we've only seen one of this" isn't the same as "there's only one of this."

Of course. I never said my assumption was proven. I never even acted upset that other people are making a different assumption. I'm not even upset that some of you act like your assumption has been proven, or is just inherently better because it is yours. I can't be upset by it because I find it amusing.

I mean, you have to admit, "we've only seen one of these, it may be unique" does at least sound better than "we've only seen one of these, it can't possibly be unique."

 

[warpus]

You're not though. The only thing you've said is that it's unlikely that a thing can only happen because the universe is so vast. But you're not accounting for the actual probability at all, which you can't because we don't know what it is. It doesn't matter how big a number X is. If you multiply it by 1/X you still get 1.

I tried walking somebody through the math a while ago and it didn't go anywhere, just pages of back and forth nonsense. Let me try again, maybe I can explain it better this time:

Say that you have a die with an X number of sides. Say that you will roll this die once for every single planet in the universe. You have no idea how many planets and you have no idea how big X is.

Each time you roll a very specific number (Let's say 581,658,618,115,618,681,688,683,111,687,863,238) for a planet, that means life arose there.

Even though all the probabilities are a mystery to you, in this scenario it is more probable for you to roll this number twice or more, if you have already rolled it once. It's possible that the number will never ever come up again and you end up with a grand total of 1 roll, but statistically speaking you can expect to roll it multiple times, assuming you've already rolled it once.

It's possible we are the only life that ever arose in the universe anywhere, ever. But it's more likely that it also arose elsewhere. P(1) is just one singular data point while P(2) + P(3) + P(4) + P(5) + ... is a combination of probabilities. In some cases yes, P(1) will be more likely, if you set up your variables just right. But in most situations it wouldn't be. We have no idea which situation we are in, but we can't just assume we are in the situation where P(1) is more likely.

Anyway, if this doesn't make sense then I won't be able to convince you. And that's fine, but I'd put $100 on other life existing out there somewhere. It would be really statistically improbable for it to just happen once, ever, although sure, it could happen, just like Yeovil Town can win the English Premier League.

I love the way you assume that when we don't get anywhere it's me that is not a reasonable person.

I mean, we can't even get past "Give me an example of ..."

Let me rephrase then! Give me an example of a scientific phenomenon that's only happened once in the universe ever.

Pointing at a rock and saying "unique rock right there dude" is obviously just a way to pull the conversation to a tangent and derail it

 

[Manfred Belheim]

No it doesn't. The anthropic principle merely states that the presence of us humans means our environment must permit human life. It says nothing whatever about our environment being "special" relative to the rest of the universe, wherever we want to draw the arbitrary line between "our environment" and the rest of the universe.

The anthropic principle combined with the mediocrity principle would imply that conditions amenable to humans are likely to be present in lots of other places besides earth, because it's more likely that earth is one of many rather than a singular occurrence. This is really no different from saying that if you choose a random star from all the stars in the universe, it is most likely to be a red dwarf since this is the most numerous type of star in the universe. Or if you pick a random marble out of a bag with 17 red marbles and 1 green marble, it is likelier to be a red marble than a green marble.

I mean, Earth could be the green marble. But given the Copernican principle, it's likelier to be a red marble. We don't need exact numbers to say that one thing is likelier than another.

Well... I've already said this is a semantic tangent that isn't really important to what I was saying. What you're saying doesn't apply because we only have a sample of one marble. We can't infer the colours of any other marbles because we have no idea about them.

 

[Lexicus]

Of course. I never said my assumption was proven. I never even acted upset that other people are making a different assumption. I'm not even upset that some of you act like your assumption has been proven, or is just inherently better because it is yours. I can't be upset by it because I find it amusing.

Well, I for one know my assumption is correct because there was an episode of Community where there are two Jeffs (one of them is eating his phone). There's also an Episode of Always Sunny in Philadelphia where Dennis is getting his hair cut by another Dennis.

QED

Well... I've already said this is a semantic tangent that isn't really important to what I was saying. What you're saying doesn't apply because we only have a sample of one marble. We can't infer the colours of any other marbles because we have no idea about them.

So, first of all, we know the color of more than one marble: we have seven other planets we know about that definitely don't host life (well okay - in Mars' case, almost definitely, and I'm ignoring the moons for now), and we have many (dozens? perhaps hundreds) more that almost certainly don't (the exoplanets larger than Jupiter orbiting closer to their stars than Mercury is to the Sun, for example).

But this objection actually shows you've misunderstood the mediocrity principle in addition to the anthropic principle. The mediocrity principle is meant to help us draw (qualified) conclusions from a sample of one. Pull a marble out of a bag without looking in the bag. It's green. The mediocrity principle says, in the absence of any other information, that it's more likely than not that green is the most commonly-occurring marble color in the bag. Because it's likelier that you pulled out a common marble than a rare marble.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I tried walking somebody through the math a while ago and it didn't go anywhere, just pages of back and forth nonsense. Let me try again, maybe I can explain it better this time:

I think you're just overcomplicating things. There isn't really any maths to go through. We have a statistical sample of 1, which only tells is that the probability must be non-zero (or God).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Let me rephrase then! Give me an example of a scientific phenomenon that's only happened once in the universe ever.

Why?

How does "spacefaring intelligent life" suddenly become "a scientific phenomena"? It's a culmination combining an uncountable number of events. Just like even though you are a culmination of uncountable chemical reactions the fact that none of those chemical reactions is particularly unusual you are still unique, it makes no difference that scientific phenomena may not be unique in a conversation about whether spacefaring intelligent life is.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, I for one know my assumption is correct because there was an episode of Community where there are two Jeffs (one of them is eating his phone). There's also an Episode of Always Sunny in Philadelphia where Dennis is getting his hair cut by another Dennis.

QED

And yet none of them are Warpi.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

I look at the possibilities of life on other planets this way:

If you have a (nearly) infinite number of monkeys typing on typewriters, one will eventually reproduce the works of Shakespeare. If you have a nearly infinite (lets just say an uncountably large) number of planets in the entire universe, there is almost a certain probability that since life has arisen once, life will arise again somewhere else. It may not look like something we're used to, but it will be life. There are simply too many stars out there with potential planetary systems to not have at least a percentage of them in the "Goldilocks Zone" capable of sustaining life, and or liquid water. That percentage, on a universal scale could mean billions of planets capable of sustaining life. If you assume our planet is the only planet out of the billion or so that may exist able to support life, the probability of life occurring is 1/1,000,000,000 x 100 = 0.000001 %. Those are ridiculously low odds for life to have developed on earth, and I've possibly done my math wrong.

In any case, I find it presumptuous and arrogant for humans to assume that Earth is the only planet in the cosmos to have developed and sustained life.

Incidentally, it's become a theory that octopi are from outer space:

http://www.newsweek.com/alien-octopuses-outer-space-930942

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/ne...s/news-story/61c54641ceb4dbf0c9da927e5a7de49e

Not sure I believe this one, but given my statistical theory, it's slightly credible, assuming that the DNA or eggs survived outer space, re-entry, etc.

 

[warpus]

What you're saying doesn't apply because we only have a sample of one marble. We can't infer the colours of any other marbles because we have no idea about them.

I studied this stuff in school, it definitely applies. Unless you are a mathematician who can show me that probabilities of probabilities are bunk and/or do not apply in this case. In which case I'm all ears!

I think you're just overcomplicating things. There isn't really any maths to go through. We have a statistical sample of 1, which only tells is that the probability must be non-zero (or God).

This is a fairly common thing you can use statistics to study. You just ignored the explanation I've typed up because the conclusion doesn't agree with your worldview or whatever. You could have at least tried to reason through it and show me which step I took you through you think is incorrect.

It's a lot easier to just say "Nope, I'm right, you're wrong" I guess, yeah..

Why?

How does "spacefaring intelligent life" suddenly become "a scientific phenomena"? It's a culmination combining an uncountable number of events. Just like even though you are a culmination of uncountable chemical reactions the fact that none of those chemical reactions is particularly unusual you are still unique, it makes no difference that scientific phenomena may not be unique in a conversation about whether spacefaring intelligent life is.

Dear dude, we were discussing abiogenesis. Is this the origin of our disagreement?

I'm not saying it's impossible for unique things to exist in the universe, such as me. That wouldn't make any sense in the context of this conversation at all.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's a lot easier to just say "Nope, I'm right, you're wrong" I guess, yeah..

Well, with you setting the example that is pretty easy.

I'd be interested in knowing where you did this studying in school, because I think the "sample size equals one, no conclusions can be drawn" is a pretty universal concept and I don't see how you missed out on it.

 

[Lexicus]

Well, with you setting the example that is pretty easy.

I'd be interested in knowing where you did this studying in school, because I think the "sample size equals one, no conclusions can be drawn" is a pretty universal concept and I don't see how you missed out on it.

We already have a sample of more than one. We have a sample of, what, thousands of planets (note: according to Google, 3504 confirmed expoplanets, plus the eight in our solar system), of which one definitely harbors life, a few definitely don't, and lots more are "maybes".

 

[warpus]

Well, with you setting the example that is pretty easy.

I'd be interested in knowing where you did this studying in school, because I think the "sample size equals one, no conclusions can be drawn" is a pretty universal concept and I don't see how you missed out on it.

I already explained everything in a previous post, feel free to re-read. Just because you haven't studied statistics and probability doesn't mean the above is a good retort.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I already explained everything in a previous post, feel free to re-read. Just because you haven't studied statistics and probability doesn't mean the above is a good retort.

Any time you want to produce a quality statistical analysis produced from a sample size of one, feel free. Until then, your arrogance is the only thing you are getting across here.

What I really would like to say in response to your assumptions about my lack of education would get me banned, but I'm guessing you've probably heard such things before so you can guess. We'll leave it at "you're incorrect."

 

[Timsup2nothin]

We already have a sample of more than one. We have a sample of, what, thousands of planets (note: according to Google, 3504 confirmed expoplanets, plus the eight in our solar system), of which one definitely harbors life, a few definitely don't, and lots more are "maybes".

Your sample size is one. You don't get to make a statistical analysis about diamonds out of one diamond and a bunch of rocks.

 

[warpus]

Any time you want to produce a quality statistical analysis produced from a sample size of one, feel free. Until then, your arrogance is the only thing you are getting across here.

What I really would like to say in response to your assumptions about my lack of education would get me banned, but I'm guessing you've probably heard such things before so you can guess. We'll leave it at "you're incorrect."

You're way too emotionally invested in this argument. I would be far more interested in you analyzing my actual explanation, and pointing out which parts of it you don't agree with, so that we can move forward.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Moderator Action: At this point I would like to appeal for a little bit of calm in the discussion before it gets too heated, please.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You're way too emotionally invested in this argument. I would be far more interested in you analyzing my actual explanation, and pointing out which parts of it you don't agree with, so that we can move forward.

Did that, early on. You are too married to "the Warpus assumptions qualify as facts" to have a discussion with, so all that is really left is making fun of you until your arrogance becomes so obvious that even you recognize it...or you don't.

 

[red_elk]

Not sure I believe this one, but given my statistical theory, it's slightly credible, assuming that the DNA or eggs survived outer space, re-entry, etc.

It's certainly hard to believe, giving that octopi have the same protein structure and amino-acid coding sequence as all the other Earth inhabitants.
We must have common ancestors with them.

 

[warpus]

Okay, moving on!

There is definitely other life out there. Anyone willing to take a $100 bet with me feel free to send me a private message, but just be aware that it will never be possible to prove that you won the bet.

It feels a bit frustrating that we likely won't know answers to these questions within our lifetimes.

It's certainly hard to believe, giving that octopi have the same protein structure and amino-acid coding sequence as all the other Earth inhabitants.
We must have common ancestors with them.

Apparently a lot of our (human) DNA made it into our cells via viruses and not from any sort of human ancestor.

So maybe it's possible that we have the same common ancestor as another species, but some of their DNA comes via panspermia?

Mind you it does seem unlikely to me that life that arose independently elsewhere would contain something that's compatible with our DNA